The purpose of this study is to critically examine family leave policies across universities in the United States to determine whether and to what degree they rely on traditional notions of motherhood and family. Conversations surrounding the lack of equitable and adequate family leave should be continued by researchers, advocates, and policymakers, but the inclusivity of current family leave policies warrants critical attention. The reliance on reproduction to define motherhood excludes individuals who cannot or choose not to give birth. This reliance also attaches mothering behaviors and norms to feminine bodies which works to reify gender inequalities. This project utilizes a mixed methods approach. Using a qualitative content analysis of family leave policies from different universities, I examine if and how they rely on aspects of physical birth, heteronormativity, and gendered language. I compare family leave policies across states that are (and are not) considered LGBTQ+ friendly. Secondly, I used a binary logistic regression analysis to test institutional isomorphism, specifically examining to what extent coercive and mimetic pressures affect family leave policy inclusiveness. I found that most policies are gender neutral and do not rely heavily on reproduction, but the implications of those that are highly gendered and rely on reproduction are enlightening. I found that only 8% of policies included LGBTQ+ specific protections. The regression model revealed that isomorphism is not the greatest predictor of policy inclusiveness, and that universities in less progressive states are more likely to have inclusive policies / Master of Science / The purpose of this research is to examine to what degree university family leave policies rely on traditional gender norms, biological reproduction, and heteronormativity, thus determining how inclusive family leave policies are of adoptive and LGBTQ+ families. Notions of traditional gender norms, biological reproduction, and heteronormativity can potentially exclude adoptive and LGBTQ+ families, as well as gender-nonconforming individuals. I compared universities in both progressive and conservative states to determine if state politics have any effect on family leave policy inclusiveness. I used a content analysis to examine these policies, where I individually coded each policy for gendered language, notions of biological reproduction, and LGBTQ+ protections. I also ran a statistical analysis to determine what variables have an effect on overall policy leave inclusiveness. I found that most policies are gender neutral and do not rely heavily on reproduction, but the implications of those that are highly gendered and rely on reproduction are enlightening. I found that only 8% of policies included LGBTQ+ specific protections. The statistical analysis revealed that state politics (i.e., informal pressures) are not the best indicator of policy inclusiveness, as universities in less progressive states are more likely to have inclusive policies.